<p>PosterX, I would argue that the NM scholar system is a very poor way of determining the "cream of the cream," because people are identified primarily by tests that have been shown to be poor reflections of intellect and potential, and biased based on wealth, gender, and race. Period. I go to a top school and I wasn't even close to being a NM scholar because SATs simply aren't my thing. Real life intelligence is. </p>
<p>And New York being MORE privledged? Um...no. What about all the poor inner city areas?</p>
<p>ClaySoul, I agree that the NMSC ranking is not perfect, as I've explained in detail before. Obviously NY has great income diversity, my point was that, unlike something like the Intel award or others which are concentrated in large metros on the coasts, the NMSC-sponsored measure does distribute the top student awards geographically across the whole country. Also, there is an extremely high correlation between the NM Scholars and very high grades (e.g., valedictorians), which itself is a great indication of real life intelligence and future success. So it's probably by far the most accurate measure out there in terms of telling you which schools attract the best students.</p>
<p>I've had the conversation already. You're basically arguing that the entire system is useless because of the fact that SAT scores are a poor indication of intelligence. While I agree that standardized tests are highly flawed and biased, it is impossible to ignore their correlations with other outcome measures, not to mention the fact that, at a national level, it is easier/more precise to measure them than any other data, and therefore their (relative) status as the most accurate and broadest way to measure selectivity across America's thousands of colleges and universities. </p>
<p>Other outcome measures may be "better", such as the percentage of students who get into the top graduate schools, percentage of valedictorians, or the percentage of students who win the Rhodes or Marshall Scholarship, but if you look at those data you will see that they are all extremely well correlated with the % of entering students who are NMSC scholars. </p>
<p>Of course, the best way to go about research is to visit every school you are interested in for 2-3 days each, talking with as many students and faculty as possible, but the fact is that you can't possibly do that. So most people's advice is to apply and go to the best school you can get into. And on a national basis, there is probably no better comparative measurement of the quality of the entering class than the % NMSC.</p>
<p>Of course there will be a correlation between high pSATS and high grades. You can't be not smart and do well on the SATs. However, what it overlooks (and to a huge, astronomical extent) is the tremendous number of equally smart students who simply aren't attuned to the SATS, or don't have coaches, etc. So a vast number of top students are ignored, thus making the NMSC system in no way a comprehensive asessment of intelligent students, or where they go to school.</p>
<p>I agree with all of that. It is in no way comprehensive. Obviously it overlooks a lot of people. However, it is by far the best measure of selectivity out there, in terms of a measure that is able to measured with precision and on such a large scale. I've explained the reasoning for all of that above. Also, you can not deny that the NMSC scholars very often go on to top graduate schools. That's probably why Caltech, Yale, and Harvard, which have the highest %NMSC, also have by far the highest % of people going on to the very top grad schools.</p>
<p>And, supposing that were true, which it isn't, what would the flipside response to that be, ClaySoul? Let's stick to the issue, not the insecurities. Also, it's not "me" who is giving the measure credit - it is widely used among evaluators.</p>
<p>I really don't understand where this thread has gone. It's quite silly to focus so much on ranking schools based on a 50-80 pt difference in mean SAT scores. Honestly, that really isn't statistically significant anyway.</p>
<p>And all this garbage about National Merit-- SAT scores are what matter, and it's useless comparing SAT1/ACT scores among these top schools, and thus where this thread has turned into garbage. Also, when you're talking about this top tier of schools, please use criteria like specific departments, classroom experience, extracurricular offerings, quality of professors, feel of the campus, etc. to differentiate them.</p>
<p>Here are some figures from "Barron's Guide To The Ivy League Schools", Copyright 1971:
1)Brown- Median SATV-685
Median SATM-680
2)Columbia-Median SATV-696
Median SATM-697
3)Cornell-Median SATV-618
Median SATM-667
4)Dartmouth-Median SATV-650
Median SATM-700
5)Harvard-Did not list. Math and Verbal medians close to 700.
6)Princeton-Median SATV-641
Median SATM-684
7)Penn-Medians for men-Median V-630
Median M-660
Medians for women-Median V-635
Median M-619
8)Yale-Medians for men-Median V-691
Median M-712
Medians for women-Median V-716
Median M-705</p>